Buy online from Apple. Court rules they can steal and use your data

macrumors 6502

Yep, evil, evil Apple. It is against the law to do this in a real store, but online, Apple can do as they please with your info. Guess Apple is just as evil as Google, eh?

And I don't care if you want to try and somehow twist this into a "Yeah, but Google is more evil" b.s. argument. Remember, these tech companies need your analytics and they will do whatever they can to get it. Yes, even Apple.

macrumors 601

Did you link to the wrong article? The one you linked to says that Apple is allowed to require personal information such as address and phone number when you purchase goods from them using a credit card.

macrumors Penryn

Yep, evil, evil Apple. It is against the law to do this in a real store, but online, Apple can do as they please with your info. Guess Apple is just as evil as Google, eh?

And I don't care if you want to try and somehow twist this into a "Yeah, but Google is more evil" b.s. argument. Remember, these tech companies need your analytics and they will do whatever they can to get it. Yes, even Apple.

To help explain this for those that still have trouble comprehending this, when you go to a store to buy a DVD, you give them your credit card. When this occurs, are you asked for your phone number? Does that store have the right to log your address and phone number in a ledger behind the counter because you bought something from them?

I realize this is hard to grasp for those that worship at the alter of Apple, but this is akin to storing info of a personal nature 'without' your consent to use however Apple sees fit. Apple is not this saintly corporation. It is a business. Wake up.

P.S. There is a reason this went to the Cali Supreme Court (which by the way did not rule in favor of Apple unanimously.)

To help explain this for those that still have trouble comprehending this, when you go to a store to buy a DVD, you give them your credit card. When this occurs, are you asked for your phone number? Does that store have the right to log your address and phone number in a ledger behind the counter because you bought something from them?

I realize this is hard to grasp for those that worship at the alter of Apple, but this is akin to storing info of a personal nature 'without' your consent to use however Apple sees fit. Apple is not this saintly corporation. It is a business. Wake up.

Click to expand...

It's you who cannot comprehend the article.

For one thing it's not "stealing" information when somebody gives them it willingly. You have the option of shopping elsewhere.

The ruling does not say they can do whatever they want with your information, it merely says they can collect the information.

To help explain this for those that still have trouble comprehending this, when you go to a store to buy a DVD, you give them your credit card. When this occurs, are you asked for your phone number? Does that store have the right to log your address and phone number in a ledger behind the counter because you bought something from them?

I realize this is hard to grasp for those that worship at the alter of Apple, but this is akin to storing info of a personal nature 'without' your consent to use however Apple sees fit. Apple is not this saintly corporation. It is a business. Wake up.

P.S. There is a reason this went to the Cali Supreme Court (which by the way did not rule in favor of Apple unanimously.)

Click to expand...

I was going to give you a shovel to help you dig out of the hole you find yourself in but I fear you'll just use it to dig yourself in deeper.

macrumors G5

Yep, evil, evil Apple. It is against the law to do this in a real store, but online, Apple can do as they please with your info. Guess Apple is just as evil as Google, eh?

Click to expand...

I read the ruling, and in no way can it be reasonably interpreted in the way that you try to interpret it. In a brick-and-mortar store, the person accepting a credit card can see that you have the original credit card, they can check whether you behave in a suspicious way, they have lots of ways to reduce the chances of fraud. An online store only has the credit card number that is typed in, so they don't know whether the person typing in the credit card number actually has the card, they can't check for suspicious behaviour etc. and would therefore be much more likely to become victim of fraud. That's the reason why this court decided that Apple (and other sellers) have to right to collect additional information to verify that you are the rightful owner of a credit card.

In no way does this decision allow Apple or another seller to use the information in any way other than to decide whether they want to sell to you or not.

And I don't care if you want to try and somehow twist this into a "Yeah, but Google is more evil" b.s. argument.

Click to expand...

Here you pretend that people would actually agree with your premise ("Apple is evil") and would try to counter it with irrelevant counterarguments ("Google is more evil"). That's not the case. What people are telling you is that your argument is actually totally wrong. Apple isn't evil. What you are complaining about is a business practice that is entirely reasonable, that is practiced by about everyone, and that is absolutely necessary to prevent fraud by using stolen credit card details.

I realize this is hard to grasp for those that worship at the alter of Apple,

Click to expand...

This is where you start getting insulting. You actually claim that the only reason why someone would disagree with you is because some weird brainwashing is going on. I'd say that on the contrary, people disagreeing with you do so because they have a rational view of things.

macrumors P6

OK I'm confused. Anytime I order something online I'm asked to supply address and phone number. This certainly isn't unique to Apple. Of course throwing Apple in the headline is good click bait.

Click to expand...

It's being used by most online retailers because a person is using a credit card over the internet and the retailer wants to make sure the purchaser isn't using a stolen credit card.

Very logical and now very legal according to the CSSC.

It's as simple as that.

I'm glad they do it because I wouldn't want someone using my credit card number to purchase something without knowing the cardholders address and phone number to make sure the purchaser is the owner of the credit card.

EVERY online vendor who accepts credit cards asks for name and billing address. They have to, because they use it to verify that the person placing the order is the card-holder. If one gives incorrect information, as I have sometimes done by mistake, the purchase verification fails.

Also, if billing address differs from shipping address, say if my billing address is a PO Box, then that can sometimes complicate orders. Some vendors won't ship any items worth more than $X unless the two addresses are the same. Speaking from experience.

The same applies if you make a telephone order. For example, if I phone The Republic of Tea and place an order, they will ask me for my billing address. Actually, they first ask me for my customer number, then they confirm my billing address. But if it's a first time buyer, they ask for the billing address.

The reason this information is not required in a store is because you present the actual physical credit card in person. Try making an in-person credit-card purchase with just a number written on a piece of paper, and see how far you get.

Since I have not yet found a way of teleporting my credit card or picture ID over the internet (or telephone line), it seems reasonable to me that the security procedures for validating an in-person card-holder differ from those for remote sales. Shocking to some, perhaps, and I really hope Apple will innovate in the area of teleportation technologies in the very near future.

thread startermacrumors 6502

EVERY online vendor who accepts credit cards asks for name and billing address. They have to, because they use it to verify that the person placing the order is the card-holder. If one gives incorrect information, as I have sometimes done by mistake, the purchase verification fails.

Also, if billing address differs from shipping address, say if my billing address is a PO Box, then that can sometimes complicate orders. Some vendors won't ship any items worth more than $X unless the two addresses are the same. Speaking from experience.

The same applies if you make a telephone order. For example, if I phone The Republic of Tea and place an order, they will ask me for my billing address. Actually, they first ask me for my customer number, then they confirm my billing address. But if it's a first time buyer, they ask for the billing address.

The reason this information is not required in a store is because you present the actual physical credit card in person. Try making an in-person credit-card purchase with just a number written on a piece of paper, and see how far you get.

Since I have not yet found a way of teleporting my credit card or picture ID over the internet (or telephone line), it seems reasonable to me that the security procedures for validating an in-person card-holder differ from those for remote sales. Shocking to some, perhaps, and I really hope Apple will innovate in the area of teleportation technologies in the very near future.

Click to expand...

I have paid for many things without having the "physical credit card". There is this little thing called Google Wallet / Pay pass. Maybe you have heard of it? Or maybe you don't know how it actually works?

And again, there is a reason this went to the California Supreme Court (this significance seems to allude you guys) and there was not a majority decision (very significant as well). Apparently, there was actually some merit to this issue.
And for a group that was whining about Google doing this sort of thing, it is ironic that all of a sudden it is okay, because it is Apple doing it.

macrumors 68020

I have paid for many things without having the "physical credit card". There is this little thing called Google Wallet / Pay pass. Maybe you have heard of it? Or maybe you don't know how it actually works?

And again, there is a reason this went to the California Supreme Court (this significance seems to allude you guys) and there was not a majority decision (very significant as well). Apparently, there was actually some merit to this issue.
And for a group that was whining about Google doing this sort of thing, it is ironic that all of a sudden it is okay, because it is Apple doing it.

Click to expand...

Don't you have to have your billing address on file with Google in order to use Wallet?

To help explain this for those that still have trouble comprehending this, when you go to a store to buy a DVD, you give them your credit card. When this occurs, are you asked for your phone number? Does that store have the right to log your address and phone number in a ledger behind the counter because you bought something from them?

Click to expand...

No, they don't ask me for a phone number, but they do often ask to see ID to verify I am the person the card is made out to.

Online retailers don't have that luxury. The only way for them to confirm you are who you say is to verify the billing information addresses.

macrumors 603

I have paid for many things without having the "physical credit card". There is this little thing called Google Wallet / Pay pass. Maybe you have heard of it? Or maybe you don't know how it actually works?

Click to expand...

Or maybe I don't use it? And maybe there are good reasons, like it's not accepted where I shop?

Quote

And again, there is a reason this went to the California Supreme Court (this significance seems to allude you guys) and there was not a majority decision (very significant as well). Apparently, there was actually some merit to this issue.

Click to expand...

The issue was whether Apple (a vendor) requiring the information for sales in their online store was a violation of the privacy law in question.

I have said nothing about the merits of the case, nor the merits of the decision. It seems like a completely reasonable legal case to me. If Apple didn't do it, some other big vendor should have.

I'm simply commenting on the fact that a very large number of other vendors, both online and by telephone, do exactly the same thing, and have done so for years. Yet you aren't criticizing any of them, despite doing exactly the same thing for years and years.

Over a decade ago, I was involved in making parts of a payment system for online gaming. The credit-card gateway required certain information about the card-holder in order to perform validation. This was simply how credit-card payments were processed. Nothing magical nor nefarious, it's just how payments were processed.

Quote

And for a group that was whining about Google doing this sort of thing, it is ironic that all of a sudden it is okay, because it is Apple doing it.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what group you think I'm representing in my posts. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else.

I have never whined about Google doing this, nor about it not doing this. Nor have I said anything about giving Apple a free pass or it being suddenly okay. It's simply the way credit cards are processed, and have been for years. Like back in the old days, before Google Wallet existed. Since Google Wallet only seems to have been around for at most 2 years, it may come as a surprise that not all vendors are willing to completely revamp their known-working payment processing systems quite as quickly as some might wish for. Because it it ain't broke, don't fix it.

EDIT

The outcome of this case means that any vendor in California collecting information for credit-card processing is not running afoul of this privacy law. So the result benefits Google just as much as it does Apple or any other vendor in California. It even says this right in the article:

... the ruling has favorable implications for online retailers other than Apple.​

So why are you not outraged that Wal-mart, Williams-Sonoma, Barnes and Noble, or even Google, or indeed any other online vendor in California can do exactly the same "stealing" of data that you accuse Apple of? Why does only Apple get all the vitriol?

thread startermacrumors 6502

Or maybe I don't use it? And maybe there are good reasons, like it's not accepted where I shop?

The issue was whether Apple (a vendor) requiring the information for sales in their online store was a violation of the privacy law in question.

I have said nothing about the merits of the case, nor the merits of the decision. It seems like a completely reasonable legal case to me. If Apple didn't do it, some other big vendor should have.

I'm simply commenting on the fact that a very large number of other vendors, both online and by telephone, do exactly the same thing, and have done so for years. Yet you aren't criticizing any of them, despite doing exactly the same thing for years and years.

Over a decade ago, I was involved in making parts of a payment system for online gaming. The credit-card gateway required certain information about the card-holder in order to perform validation. This was simply how credit-card payments were processed. Nothing magical nor nefarious, it's just how payments were processed.

I have no idea what group you think I'm representing in my posts. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else.

I have never whined about Google doing this, nor about it not doing this. Nor have I said anything about giving Apple a free pass or it being suddenly okay. It's simply the way credit cards are processed, and have been for years. Like back in the old days, before Google Wallet existed. Since Google Wallet only seems to have been around for at most 2 years, it may come as a surprise that not all vendors are willing to completely revamp their known-working payment processing systems quite as quickly as some might wish for. Because it it ain't broke, don't fix it.

EDIT

The outcome of this case means that any vendor in California collecting information for credit-card processing is not running afoul of this privacy law. So the result benefits Google just as much as it does Apple or any other vendor in California. It even says this right in the article:

... the ruling has favorable implications for online retailers other than Apple.​

So why are you not outraged that Wal-mart, Williams-Sonoma, Barnes and Noble, or even Google, or indeed any other online vendor in California can do exactly the same "stealing" of data that you accuse Apple of? Why does only Apple get all the vitriol?

macrumors 601

I have paid for many things without having the "physical credit card". There is this little thing called Google Wallet / Pay pass. Maybe you have heard of it? Or maybe you don't know how it actually works?

And again, there is a reason this went to the California Supreme Court (this significance seems to allude you guys) and there was not a majority decision (very significant as well). Apparently, there was actually some merit to this issue.
And for a group that was whining about Google doing this sort of thing, it is ironic that all of a sudden it is okay, because it is Apple doing it.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it's the same for a credit card, but in both Google Wallet and Paypal I had to supply my billing address along with my debit card info in order to make purchases using that card.

Your argument doesn't make sense; why aren't you angry that Google and Paypal have been requiring this information for years?

The problem is not that people thought it was bad until Apple was the one to do it; what is actually happening is that YOU are the one who has a problem with this now that APPLE is the one doing it.

macrumors 601

I have paid for many things without having the "physical credit card". There is this little thing called Google Wallet / Pay pass. Maybe you have heard of it? Or maybe you don't know how it actually works?

And again, there is a reason this went to the California Supreme Court (this significance seems to allude you guys) and there was not a majority decision (very significant as well). Apparently, there was actually some merit to this issue.
And for a group that was whining about Google doing this sort of thing, it is ironic that all of a sudden it is okay, because it is Apple doing it.

Click to expand...

In addition to my above post, it is worth noting that the court simply rules on whether or not they are breaching the law; not whether or not it is moral to ask for such information from users. Therefore, the fact that it went to the supreme court and that there was no majority verdict is not a sign that a lot of people thought it was immoral - simply that some of them thought the existing law applied to both brick and mortar and online transactions.

macrumors 6502a

It's like it's cool to hate Apple now instead of liking them, I mean if you've got such hatred for them and come into an Apple fanatic forum, at least do some research before you make a complete tit out of yourself...

Google Wallet asks your billing address and Debit Card information on purchases to confirm who you are, it's most unlikely that they let you register the service without putting on some sort of address that the billing details will be billed to, this is a standard practice of any online purchase.

And for your other article, it is completely unrelated, but one could argue in that thread, and not this one. If you have strong opinions on that subject matter, then go post there. Stop making yourself look bad.

As for buying a product online, iTunes is no different, even if it is a digital product you're purchasing, it needs an address and contact information to be billed to. This information will be displayed on the billing receipts when you purchase any iTunes content.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.